From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E537F3CB35 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 06:13:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1534932810; bh=xcnJsoiL3NxT0KZMTQ7yHvD40bMvZHp5g7WclA6ZcLU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=AUgFUibfN+frDOgqLA0kVKt2CUkmbemyVDANXLruFKIYGDjlQ1nikesvhyIL9ITK9 LuEzu+SoKEoQWWsIQYtijQyTkPNt5iiwixbshpfIoVyMxqaG1QCt1CZ7V36kF8vV/p CIprVR4OUQpGRb1gufp7VoysRG7Yxsm+cw0C7A/rgEF4FLgQYMOB0lL8wrucqBILVR X2zDTms4k1W9SPcs96X/DuVALf+fJX1iWuYE7NkHH8/mMkozzWqjIoltl+zHqgbPt0 oxqauv7VjaJZT6DJFdqoIEANn8sKjyKJVShAAifjTf4+6aoYbuczbBnWBV7B5bv9v4 RifR1EW8cVZNQ== To: Jonathan Morton , Pete Heist Cc: Cake List In-Reply-To: References: <87h8jze5hk.fsf@toke.dk> <85C60B2F-78D0-4AEE-871C-BB637785BF62@gmail.com> <4D28C453-5378-4A5B-9E05-874F36C4DB30@gmail.com> <878t5aedj5.fsf@toke.dk> <87d0uc9d2f.fsf@toke.dk> <03B32CF6-2926-42A7-A407-CBD16BA38F0D@heistp.net> <87tvnm91yy.fsf@toke.dk> <70F2DBF2-5B11-43AC-82FD-899A2B0931EC@heistp.net> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 12:13:29 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87in4290ae.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Cake] issue with Cake and bpf filter X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 10:13:31 -0000 Jonathan Morton writes: >> On 22 Aug, 2018, at 12:51 pm, Pete Heist wrote: >> >> "math between pkt pointer and 4294901760 is not allowed" > > As a possible clue here, 4294901760 == (2^32) - (2^16). > > I suspect both errors are being caused by the call to memcpy(). This > potentially inlines a substantial amount of code which may not be > eBPF-clean. Yeah, I think this is a good guess. You could try using __builtin_memcpy() instead; that may do fewer pointer shenanigans than the function-header-defined one... -Toke